lib/customisation.nix: add addToPassthru #77466
Conversation
ofborg
bot
added
6.topic: erlang
6.topic: TeX
When running `make` from within a `nix-shell` in the `doc/` directory, these xml files reflow a bit, probably because of a linting step.
Profpatsch
force-pushed
the
lib-add-addToPassthru
branch
from
e6415b9 to
c2c491a
Compare
|
can you add a few usage examples, and rational behind throwing exception if there already is passthru attr? |
|
I’m gonna search for a few applications inside nixpkgs, I realized it makes not a lot of sense to upstream if we don’t actually use it upstream. |
|
Hm I often do |
| */ | ||
| addToPassthru = | ||
| # field to add | ||
| {name, value}: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we end up having this function I think it's much better to pass the attribute set directly as passthru's, instead of using name and value. This is more natural, allows automatic support for multiple passthru's, is more concise, and more efficient too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You mean to add multiple fields at once?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, just addToPassthru = passthrus: ... { passthru = old.passthru or {} // passthrus; }
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So add multiple fields at once?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well it doesn't have to be used for multiple fields of course
veprbl
added
2.status: merge conflict
|
Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions. Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human. If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do: If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list. If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past. If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments. Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel. |
stale
bot
added
the
2.status: stale
ryantm
added
2.status: merge conflict
Motivation for this change
This is a small helper that adds a field to passthru, which is a common task. It fails with an assert message if the field already exists to prevent obvious mistakes.
Adds the
customization.nixfile to the docstring manual generation, though the existing functions in customisation.nix are not accounted for at the moment.There’s a bit of xml tag reflow in one commit because of the doc makefile’s vanity.
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)